It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Maureen Stapleton plays a middle-aged widow in the Bronx who gets invited out for an evening with the girls to a local ballroom for elderly hoofers; there, she meets portly, starry-eyed Charles Durning, whose adoration makes her feel good about herself for the first time since her husband was alive. Acclaimed TV-movie approaches some interesting subjects (a sister's jealousy, an overprotective daughter's anger, a romance blooming in the autumn of a woman's years), and yet the plastic coating over this production is so thick that little of it rings true. The ballroom itself, filled to capacity with wily men eager to get out there and strut there stuff, may be a metaphor for the lives of its graying dancers--Last Chance For Happiness--but the collection of colorful characters Stapleton meets there are a romanticized group. Writer Jerome Kass even throws in the gambit of sung lyrics used as innermost thoughts, when what his teleplay really needs is some casual, natural interaction (there's really only one sequence which achieves this, a scene between Stapleton and son Michael Brandon doing the dishes). Although the people are phonied-up, the performances are generally likable, particularly Durning's. But who can take that ending seriously? Not after 90 minutes of sonnets, soliloquies and stardust!

..............NOW WHY WOULD a burly, blue collar and rather gruff retired ex copper like you be reviewing some picture like this? It has everyday type characters that are put through their paces against what surely would be considered to be some very unglamorous scenario in ordinary, working class settings.WELL THE ANSWER that we must give to Schultz and all the rest of you doubters is a resounding, No! This is far more complex a story than that and cannot be pigeon holed so easily. In fact if one would give it another (or even first) viewing then just what we mean would become apparent.WE FOUND THIS to be a very compelling story, even at the time of its premier telecast over forty years ago. (My God, Schultz, where has the time gone!) No doubt the reason is that it is well mounted with great scenes, intelligently written and is not a bit pretentious. The story is brought to life by a fine cast which is headed up by Miss Maureen Stapleton (Award Winner) and Mr. Charles Durning.IT THE INCLUSION of the latter which is what proved to be a surprise in the cast, essentially stealing the show. Although he had perhaps been under-appreciated for his acting skills, he had established the reputation of being the most dependable of supporting players in so many character acting parts.WITH THIS FILM, a "Made for TV" movie, Charles put himself onto yet another level in his public persona. His skills in bringing off his characterization of Al Green, Letter Carrier, U.S. Postal Department was bolstered by and possibly eclipsed by his skills as a ballroom dancer. Few if any knew that the rather stout physique of his concealed the grace and skills that he had honed up in previous years while working as a dance instructor.ONCE AGAIN, WE must repeat and cannot overemphasize the wide appeal that this story has. It surely could have been made as a theatrical film; but alas, was relegated to the "lesser" venue of the small screen in our living rooms.WELL AS EVEN Schultz and myself have come to realize, this was Oscar's loss and Emmy's windfall.

Maureen Stapleton gives a fine performance in this simple and straightforward story of an older woman trying to get on with her life after her husband dies.Stapleton's performance aside, the film has the look and feel of a typical 1970's made-for-TV movie of the week. In addition to period costumes and props, the visuals are very dark. And the background music is annoyingly nondescript. Further, I did not care for the plot device wherein Stapleton's character suddenly bursts into non-melodic song, at odd moments. It seemed unnatural and intrusive.A big part of the plot takes place at the ballroom. Here, the filmmaker could have included well-known songs from the big band era, songs that viewers could identify with. But, for whatever reason, the filmmaker passed up this opportunity, and chose instead more nondescript music that quickly becomes tiresome.Although this film is not bad, it was a disappointment to me. But other viewers may find interest in it, especially if they're looking for a low-key, sentimental story, or a film with a fine performance from Maureen Stapleton.

The very fact that I remembered the exact title of this made for TV film after 36 years, says it all for me.It was the first time I had ever seen Charles Durning or Maureen Stapleton as actors in any production, whether movie or television.Their acting was superb -- understated and classy.I was in my 20's when I saw this film and only now am I of a certain age where I can truly appreciate the feelings and emotions represented by these actors -- most of all it is Maureen Stapleton that made an impact on me.A week ago, Maureen Stapleton died and right away, I said, "Queen of the Stardust Ballroom" -- such a good, warm thought to have upon hearing of someone's passing.I would recommend this film to anyone!